MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2051763709 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/98

SEARCHING FOR DUST AROUND HYPER METAL POOR STARS

2014· article· en· W2051763709 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsCircumstellar dustFlux (metallurgy)RADIUSCosmic dustDebrisSpectral lineDebris disk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the mid-infrared fluxes and spectral energy distributions for stars with iron abundances [Fe/H] <−5, and other metal-poor stars, to eliminate the possibility that their low metallicities are related to the depletion of elements onto dust grains in the formation of a debris disk. Six out of seven stars examined here show no mid-IR excesses. These non-detections rule out many types of circumstellar disks, e.g., a warm debris disk ( T ⩽ 290 K), or debris disks with inner radii ⩽1 AU, such as those associated with the chemically peculiar post-asymptotic giant branch spectroscopic binaries and RV Tau variables. However, we cannot rule out cooler debris disks, nor those with lower flux ratios to their host stars due to, e.g., a smaller disk mass, a larger inner disk radius, an absence of small grains, or even a multicomponent structure, as often found with the chemically peculiar Lambda Bootis stars. The only exception is HE0107-5240, for which a small mid-IR excess near 10 μm is detected at the 2σ level; if the excess is real and associated with this star, it may indicate the presence of (recent) dust-gas winnowing or a binary system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→